CHANDRABHAGABAI NAMDEV JAGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are arising out of the conviction awarded to the appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Sessions Case No.23/2013 dtd. 10/2/2015. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2015 is the original accused No.2. It would be worth to mention here that she had filed the appeal challenging her conviction on 28/7/2015 together with application for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned and her appeal was registered. However, original accused No.1, who is her son, had not preferred any appeal. Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2015 came to be admitted on 4/8/2015 and by order date 14/12/2015 her application for suspension of sentence came to be rejected. However, the hearing of the appeal was expedited. Though the paper book was ready, it appears that the matter was not got for circulation till 14/10/2020. The learned Advocate for the appellant was absent on that day and then the matter was posted for final hearing. Thereafter also it was not regularly taken up and no interest was shown by the learned Advocate for the appellant. When the matter was on board on 29/7/2022 and the learned Advocate for the appellant Chandrabhagabai was absent, this Court directed learned APP to verify whether original accused No.1 Sanjay Namdev Jagle has filed any appeal challenging his conviction or not. When the matter was on board on 19/1/2023, learned APP produced letter from Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Aurangabad stating that inquiry was made with original accused No.1 Sanjay about his appeal and then he told that he has not preferred any appeal, but made a statement that due to poor financial condition he cannot make arrangement for the money, but has intention to file appeal through legal aid. Therefore, by said order dtd. 19/1/2023 this Court provided legal aid to accused Sanjay by appointing Advocate and asked him to work out the appeal. Accordingly, the appointed Advocate then filed appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2023 on behalf of accused Sanjay to challenge his conviction, which was along with criminal application for condonation of delay of 2893 days. By order dtd. 15/3/2023 the said delay was condoned and the said appeal was tagged with Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2015. This is how both the appeals are now heard.

(2.) The prosecution story is that deceased Shalubai was the wife of accused No.1 Sanjay and daughter-in-law of accused No.2 Chandrabhagabai. The marriage between Shalubai and Sanjay took place about 15 years prior to the incident and they had three children. The occupation of accused No.1 was agriculture. A dispute arose between Shalubai and both the accused on account of partition of the land and the house around 10.30 a.m. on 28/2/2013. Both the accused abused and assaulted deceased by fist blows and thereafter accused No.2 Chandrabhagabai poured kerosene on the person of Shalubai. Accused No.1 ignited the match stick and put Shalubai to fire. Shalubai herself tried to extinguish the fire, but in that process she had sustained severe burn injuries. She was then taken to Rural Hospital, Nilanga and then shifted to Civil Hospital, Latur. Her Dying Declaration was recorded by PW 3 Assistant Sub Inspector Mr. Ranzunjare. The said Dying Declaration was treated as First Information Report and offence vide Crime No.26/2013 came to be registered under Sec. 307, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Her supplementary statement came to be recorded. Further, the second Dying Declaration came to be recorded through the Executive Magistrate. Shalubai expired on 8/3/2013 due to the burn injuries and then the offence under Sec. 302 with 498-A of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer had carried out the spot panchnama and recorded statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain articles were seized from the spot while drawing spot panchnama. After Shalubai's death inquest panchnama was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem. Postmortem Report was collected. Supplementary statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

(3.) After the committal of the case learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga framed charge for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused. As they pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. Prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused has not led any evidence in defence, but their statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating circumstances have been recorded.